jameslondon

Policing and Crime Bill gets Royal Assent

34 posts in this topic

Dear All

Just read that the Policing and Crime Bill got Royal Assent this morning.

Presumably means that its powers are in force as of now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no yesterday evening

Royal Assent 4.45 pm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/91112-0004.htm#09111248000037

If there is no commencement order (IS THERE???), the Act will come into force from midnight at the start of the day of the Royal Assent.

That's that then. Bit disappointed that it wasn't more defanged in terms of asset seizure and strict liability.

Now we start seeing how it plays out in practice. Some constabularies/police forces will move earlier for moral/financial reasons. Others will hold back to see what happens. Could be months before we get a feel for how it's going to work out in different areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no yesterday evening

Royal Assent 4.45 pm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/91112-0004.htm#09111248000037

If there is no commencement order (IS THERE???), the Act will come into force from midnight at the start of the day of the Royal Assent.

Yeah! But when does it get implemented or is it business as usual. The impression I get is some members of parliament are having doubts about this decision and HH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God that is depressing reading......

This nugget from that pillock McShane

"When I raised this matter on "Newsnight", a lady from the English Collective of Prostitutes and Mr. Jeremy Paxman rounded on me and abused me, saying that there were no trafficked women and that there was no problem of any sort. What world are they living in?"

Looks like Keith Vaz game him a bit of a kicking in the politicians sense, pointing out that nobody was saying there was 'no problem of any sort.' Also some interesting comments about his visit to Soho, reporting the general consensus among the girls and that they were just sorry his honourable friend couldn't be there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no yesterday evening

Royal Assent 4.45 pm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/91112-0004.htm#09111248000037

If there is no commencement order (IS THERE???), the Act will come into force from midnight at the start of the day of the Royal Assent.

Someone I know was raided yesterday, in the morning. The old bill took statements from the punters that were there so does this mean these punters will now be dealt with under the new law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone I know was raided yesterday, in the morning. The old bill took statements from the punters that were there so does this mean these punters will now be dealt with under the new law.

they'll still need to find a "forced, coerced or deceived" girl and a client to go with that girl. Other than that it'll be business as usual. They didn't find any during the operation pentameter raids so I wouldn't hold my breath for them trying it on just yet. There's no difference in their powers otherwise. Although the closure powers could be used, but I think they've always been able to sort of do that by arresting everybody in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it's a strict liability offense, so they don't have to prove it, it's up to the punter to prove it's not true. That's the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding and interpretation of strict liability, under the relevant provisions of the Police and Crime Bill 09, is that "ignorance of whether a wg is being coerced, intimidated, compelled into prostitution" will not be a legitimate defence for any punter/client, hence my thinking that the onus is still on the authorities to provide evidence of controlling influence by third party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except it's a strict liability offense, so they don't have to prove it, it's up to the punter to prove it's not true. That's the problem.

no - you've got that totally wrong. Strict liability means that it doesn't matter if you KNEW whether she was "forced, coerced or deceived". They still have to prove you actually committed the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no - you've got that totally wrong. Strict liability means that it doesn't matter if you KNEW whether she was "forced, coerced or deceived". They still have to prove you actually committed the crime.

What are the ways to prove a customer committed the crime? Would they have to actually catch you in the act with the lady or prove that money exchanged hands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are the ways to prove a customer committed the crime? Would they have to actually catch you in the act with the lady or prove that money exchanged hands?

they'd have to prove you paid for sex with a woman who was forced, coerced or deceived by a 3rd party into being a prostitute. The way it's worded you don't actually have to do the deed - the offence is "paying".

But don't worry - you can count on your fingers the numbers of girls they've found in that category over the last few years. Certainly if you take away the ones who escaped by themselves i.e no client, and the ones who escaped with the help of a client (they're not nuts enough to go after a girl's saviour) you're looking at a handful of girls.....and then there has to be a client there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they'd have to prove you paid for sex with a woman who was forced, coerced or deceived by a 3rd party into being a prostitute. The way it's worded you don't actually have to do the deed - the offence is "paying".

But don't worry - you can count on your fingers the numbers of girls they've found in that category over the last few years. Certainly if you take away the ones who escaped by themselves i.e no client, and the ones who escaped with the help of a client (they're not nuts enough to go after a girl's saviour) you're looking at a handful of girls.....and then there has to be a client there.

or promise to pay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they'd have to prove you paid for sex with a woman who was forced, coerced or deceived by a 3rd party into being a prostitute. The way it's worded you don't actually have to do the deed - the offence is "paying".

That is my understanding, too. In which case this thread, running on the main board becomes relevant:

http://www.punternet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24079

The punter paid but became concerned that the girl wasn't willing and was being forced by a pimp in the adjacent room. He then left, without having sex & phoned the police.

I assume (i) that the post is a true story, not a trolling exercise, also (ii) that his reading of the situation was correct and that the whole thing wasn't a scam. If so, it would seem that, whilst trying to help the girl, he has notified plod that he has committed an offence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is my understanding, too. In which case this thread, running on the main board becomes relevant:

http://www.punternet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24079

The punter paid but became concerned that the girl wasn't willing and was being forced by a pimp in the adjacent room. He then left, without having sex & phoned the police.

I assume (i) that the post is a true story, not a trolling exercise, also (ii) that his reading of the situation was correct and that the whole thing wasn't a scam. If so, it would seem that, whilst trying to help the girl, he has notified plod that he has committed an offence...

well, like others have said, my first instinct on reading the post was that, if it was true, it was a scam. The girls I've heard about being rescued were not THAT obvious. The traffickers etc. are not idiots and they're not going to invite random punters to the house if she's still in the shaking/sobbing category. Nothing happened till he paid and then the "trafficker" was nice and loud and aggressive. Far too obvious.

In any case as I've said before I don't think (although they could) the police would be mad enough to try out the new law on a girl's saviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is my understanding, too. In which case this thread, running on the main board becomes relevant:

http://www.punternet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24079

The punter paid but became concerned that the girl wasn't willing and was being forced by a pimp in the adjacent room. He then left, without having sex & phoned the police.

I assume (i) that the post is a true story, not a trolling exercise, also (ii) that his reading of the situation was correct and that the whole thing wasn't a scam. If so, it would seem that, whilst trying to help the girl, he has notified plod that he has committed an offence...

He actually phoned Crimestoppers, which I presume was done anonymously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would have to catch the punter in the act, I suppose. they cant use police offices as bait as they would not be trafficked so no offence there. The only thing that would work is if they raided, and found a random punter. then they would have to prove he had paid. Then prove she was trafficked or controlled for gain. not easy i think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They would have to catch the punter in the act, I suppose. they cant use police offices as bait as they would not be trafficked so no offence there. The only thing that would work is if they raided, and found a random punter. then they would have to prove he had paid. Then prove she was trafficked or controlled for gain. not easy i think.

no - trafficked would be irrelevant as would "controlled for gain"

They have to prove ...........

(a)

[a third person] uses force, threats (whether or not relating to violence) or any

other form of coercion, or

(:D

[a third person] practises any form of deception.

The deception bit is a bit loose i.e open to interpretation, but I think they'd die on their arses if they tried to hold punters to strict liability because the pimp had told the girl a few porkies. Even in the case of force they'll struggle once a punter decides to challenge the law, which is inevitable at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very confused - I downloaded a copy of what I thought was the final policing and crime act, and it said that it was now an offence to pay for sex with somebody who was controlled for gain. But people hear say that they have to be forced or coerced. Which is it? Can the real policing and crime bill please stand up?

I thought that the "controlled for gain" wording came back again at some point?

Where is sasfan to tell us all what's what??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God that is depressing reading......

This nugget from that pillock McShane

"When I raised this matter on "Newsnight", a lady from the English Collective of Prostitutes and Mr. Jeremy Paxman rounded on me and abused me, saying that there were no trafficked women and that there was no problem of any sort. What world are they living in?"

Looks like Keith Vaz game him a bit of a kicking in the politicians sense, pointing out that nobody was saying there was 'no problem of any sort.' Also some interesting comments about his visit to Soho, reporting the general consensus among the girls and that they were just sorry his honourable friend couldn't be there!

and here's the video:rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8357000/8357743.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This piece of draconian legislation I think cost both Labour and Conservative seats. Afterall (unlike HH unaware) over half of the electoral are men. We have the scalp of JS more will follow I hope.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This piece of draconian legislation I think cost both Labour and Conservative seats. Afterall (unlike HH unaware) over half of the electoral are men. We have the scalp of JS more will follow I hope.:)

Vera Baird's also lost her seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This piece of draconian legislation I think cost both Labour and Conservative seats. Afterall (unlike HH unaware) over half of the electoral are men. We have the scalp of JS more will follow I hope.:)

If I remember correctly, Jaqueline S. was the main sponsor of said Act of Parliament. I also seem to remember that in the original draft of the P & C Bill the then Home Secretary wanted to place the onus of 'proof of innocence' on the shoulders of the punter.

This meant that if she had succeeded in getting the Bill through in its original form any punter suspected of paying for sex would be required to prove that the WG was not working against her will If he failed to do so then a charge of rape would automatically follow.

Following her departure from the Home Office JS as good as admitted that she was never really up to the job of Home Sec. when she stated publicly that senior ministers should be given 'training courses' to equip them with the necessary competences. For her, a 6 month working field-trip taking in the widest possible cross-section of the British sex-industry would have been invaluable.

Did she really contribute significantly to the defence of the british people from terrorism? I strongly suspect that any success that our security services had in protecting us was achieved in spite of her leadership not as a result of it.

So... not only did a senior law-enforcement official have no idea about fair-play and justice but she was, by her own admission, 'not fit for purpose'. Added to this was her high-handed alienation of scientific advisors and muddle-headed squandering of public finances (pornography etc...). I dread to think what other atrocities against common decency and the good reputation of the rule of Law she committed behind the scenes.

The British people are well rid of this vicious, arrogant harridan. Let's look forward to a Britain based on commonsense, fairplay and respect for fair-play and real justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now